Governor Newsom has signed into law Senate Bill 93, a state-wide right of recall, intended to assist California workers in sectors that have been especially hard hit by the COVID-19 pandemic. This new law, which is similar to earlier Los Angeles County and Los Angeles City COVID-19 ordinances, goes into effect immediately and will remain in effect through December 31, 2024.
California’s new right of recall law applies to certain hotels, private clubs, event centers, airport hospitality operations and providers of janitorial, maintenance or security services to office, retail or other commercial buildings. “Hotels” are defined as residential buildings that are designated or used for public lodging or other related services with at least 50 guest rooms or suites. The definitions of “hotels” and “event centers” include contracted, leased, or sublet premises connected to or operated in conjunction with the hotel’s or event center’s purpose.
The workers protected by the new law are those with at least six months of service in the 12 months preceding January 1, 2020, and whose most recent separation from active service resulted from a lack of business, reduction in workforce, a public health directive, government shutdown or other economic, non-disciplinary, COVID-19-related reasons.
When rehiring, covered employers must offer jobs to all qualified laid-off workers in order of seniority. Those workers who previously held the same or similar position who have satisfied the six-month service requirement are considered qualified. The rehire offer must be in writing and workers must be given at least five business days in which to accept or decline the offer. The written offer must be sent to the last known address, email address and text message number. An employer may make simultaneous, conditional offers of employment, with the final hiring decision made based on seniority.
An employer that declines to recall a laid-off employee on the grounds of lack of qualifications and instead hires someone other than a laid-off employee must provide the laid-off employee a written notice within 30 days including the length of service with the employer of those hired in lieu of that recall, along with all the reasons for the decision.
All or any part of the new law may be waived by a valid collective bargaining agreement containing clear and unambiguous waiver language.
The law also applies in certain cases where ownership of an employer changes including where: (i) ownership of the employer changed after the employee was laid-off employee, but the new business is conducting the same or similar operations as before the COVID-19 state of emergency; (ii) the form of organization of the employer changed after the COVID-19 state of emergency; (iii) substantially all of the assets of the employer were acquired by another entity that conducts the same or similar operations using substantially the same assets; and (iv) the employer relocates the operations at which a laid-off employee was employed before the COVID-19 state of emergency to a different location.
A claim under the new law may only be brought by the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement. Remedies include reinstatement and damages including front and back pay and the value of lost benefits. Additionally, a violation of the law will expose the employer to a civil penalty of $100 for each employee and liquidated damages in the amount of $500 for each employee, per day an employee’s rights are violated. In an action brought by the Labor Commissioner, the court may issue preliminary and permanent injunctive relief. Employers should note that SB 93 also imposes liability on any corporate officer or executive who owns or operates an enterprise and employs or exercises control over the wages, hours or working conditions of any employee. No criminal penalties will apply for violations of the law.
Employers are prohibited from refusing to employ, terminating or otherwise taking any adverse action against any laid-off employee for seeking to enforce their rights established, or opposing any practice prohibited by, SB 93. This prohibition also applies to any employee or laid-off employee who mistakenly, but in good faith, alleges noncompliance.
The new law permits local governments to enact ordinances that impose greater standards or establish additional enforcement provisions. Unlike the Los Angeles City and County worker recall laws, the state law does not require notice to the employer by an employee in advance of bringing a claim, and time for the employer to “cure” or fix the violation. As this provision would not impose greater employee rights, the local ordinances’ employer notice and right to cure rights would not supersede the state law.
California employers subject to the law should take care to abide by its terms; the statute allocates $6 million to the Labor Commissioner for staffing resources to implement and enforce the provisions related to the rehiring and retention of workers.
The author would like to gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Joanne Warriner.
This publication is published by the law firm of Ervin Cohen & Jessup LLP. The publication is intended to present an overview of current legal trends; no article should be construed as representing advice on specific, individual legal matters, but rather as general commentary on the subject discussed. Your questions and comments are always welcome. Articles may be reprinted with permission. Copyright 2021. All rights reserved. ECJ is a registered service mark of Ervin Cohen & Jessup LLP. For information concerning this or other publications of the firm, or to advise us of an address change, please send your request to info@ecjlaw.com.
- Partner
Kelly Scott is a partner and head of the firm’s Employment Law Department.
Mr. Scott is also a member of the Litigation Department and has practiced law since 1987. His areas of practice include representation of employers in all ...
Subscribe
Recent Posts
- Entertainment Vendors Must Certify Safety Training for Employees By: Jared W. Slater
- California Employers Prohibited from Mandatory Religious or Political Meetings | By: Jared W. Slater
- California Expands Reach Of Crown Act to Prevent Discrimination Based On Natural and Protective Hairstyles | By: Cate A. Veeneman
- SB 1340 Allows Enforcement Of Local Employment Discrimination Laws | By: Kelly O. Scott
- Landlord: Look Out and Take Notice | By: Geoffrey M. Gold
- New Cal/OSHA Indoor Heat Standards Require New Prevention Measures and Written Prevention Plan | By: Joanne Warriner
- California Bans All Plastic Bags at Grocery Stores | By: Pooja S. Nair
- FTC’s Nationwide Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Stopped by Federal Court Ruling | By: Cate A. Veeneman
- Can the IRS Obtain a Receiver to Help Collect Taxes Owed? | By: Peter Davidson
- Severing Unconscionable Terms in Employment Arbitration Agreements | By: Jared W. Slater
Blogs
Contributors
Archives
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014